Skip to comments.[Wisconsin Gov Scott] Walker 2, Unions 0
Posted on 12/20/2013 12:17:24 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
It seems that the unions had good reason to fear Scott Walker.
In news that is unlikely to receive wide play in the legacy media, it appears that a number of Wisconsin unions failed to achieve recertification as a result of year-end member votes.
The recertification votes were a consequence of Act 10, the epoch-making collective-bargain reforms pushed through by Walker in the face of mass demonstrations, vandalism, death threats, and all but open rebellion by unions in 2011. One of act's provisions was that public-sector unions must be annually recertified by a positive vote of at least half their members. The first such vote took place over the past few weeks, with results released Thursday.
According to preliminary results from the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, over 5,500 Wisconsin workers chose to abandon their unions. These include an entire unit of substitute teachers in Milwaukee along with food service, maintenance, and transportation units in Dane Country. Both are onetime centers of anti-Walker sentiment.
Other union failures occurred in towns as widely separated as Menomonee Falls (which saw the collapse of its entire teachers union), Lake Geneva, Fond du Lac, New Berlin, Germantown, Beaver Dam, and Elcho.
The vote marks a serious rebuke to the public-sector unions, the AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) above all, particularly in light of the fact that Wisconsin is the birthplace of public-sector unionism....
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Annual re-certification seems a bit excessive, and expensive.
Another win for Act 10
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
The CBS website in Madistan, WI paints a completely different picture.
That is excellent news.
Union membership should never be a condition of employment. Politicians who use their office to protect and promote unions are corrupt abusers of power. Government should *never* show favoritism in that manner.
It’s all in how you spin the story. The fact that some unions did not survive is significant. Those unions that survived the first round of voting may see a need to be more representative of their members, and reform themselves in an effort to survive when they realize that they no longer have a stranglehold on their members.
Yea, expensive to the unions. If you wanted to work at a particular trade before Scott Walker, you had to join the union having your dues automatically deducted, no if ands or butts. Now the worker decides if he needs union representation. The union has to do the certification, the state just enforces the new law.
What I find stunning is how fast this all happened. It would have been last year but the statists pulled a last minute Judge’s ruling that was not struck down until after the certification date had passed.
Next year will be even more stunning, especially when the unions take a big hit in Michigan. This could very well be the start of the end to unions as we know them.
Is the recertification vote by union members, or by all employees.
Here's why I ask?..and maybe I'm missing something
Let's say that before the reforms passed, we had a union of 1,000 teachers. So, 501 would have to vote for recertification. Next year, 400 teachers stop paying dues..drop out of the union..so that 301 are needed to recertify, right? But that's not a majority of the total number of teachers ( 1,000) And what happens when more than 500 teachers drop out of the union? It's then not even a viable collective bargaining agency.
However...Scott Walker supports the SEIU and other Unions with his support of Illegal Alien Amnesty
Another Ryan/Priebus Wisconsin Liberal RINO folks getting hoodwinked by. Not falling for it
The funny thing is that when he was first elected he TRIED to work with the unions. They, like El-Presidente, refused to negotiate. But in this case we had all the power and were able to work around them.
If unions have to spend money for such votes, they will have less to spend to support Democrats.
In the case that you mention above, the union organization of 1000 would not be recertified. Then, if 499 teachers decided to organize as a union again, they could do so. The vote to recertify that union would vote again the next year, with 250 of 499 members needed to recertify.
In what way?
Corporations have to have annual votes for the BoD. This should be essentially treated the same way. As to the expense, if unions have enough spare money lying around to throw into democrat political coffers, then they have money enough to run a recertification vote.
“If unions have to spend money for such votes, they will have less to spend to support Democrats.”
There has to be a better rationale for an annual vote — something to do with protection of the workers, or the public interest. A strictly punitive measure, that’s designed only to bleed funds from the unions, cannot be justified. Such things have a way of circling around, and biting us in the rear.
If a Governor is elected for 4 years, couldn’t a union be certified for 2 years — or longer, if there is a longer-term union contract in place?